F6f^ 




698 
S8 
3PV 1 



A- 



AN ADDRESS 



To tlie People of Indian Tevrittn-y on the Question of Independent St^ite- 
hood for Indian Territory, by the Campaign Committee of tlie Con- 
stitutional Convention, Authorized and Assembled at IVIuskogee. 
August 21, 1J)(>5. 

Your committee present this address containing, as briefly as pos- 
sible, the principal points, which are obvidus and pertinent to this 
issue, first from a local, second from a National standpoint. 

WHY WE SHOUIiD HAVE A SEPARATE STATE. 

1. All people naturally desire self government, the right to con- 
trol their own affairs and make laws for their own government free 
from outside interference. This fundamental right is God given, in- 
alienable, indestructible. 

2. The absorption of Indian Territory into Oklahoma wou'.d not 
f)nly offend the feelings of the people of Indian Territory, but also the 
feelings of the people of Oklahoma, the great body of the people of 
both Territories being opposed to joint statehood. 

3. The people of Oklahoma have established a code of laws of 
their own. suitable to them, based upon the Xebraslca Statutes, pro- 
viding for all public institutions, laying down ordinances for the gov- 
ernment of the people in all lines. These rules are not such as would 
be agreeable or suitable to the people of Indian Territory in a vast 
number of particulars. 

For illustration, 

a. They have the free saloon and do not have prohibition of in- 
toxicating liquors. 

b. They have a tax system, which has no maximum rate and 
which encourages the people to scale their property down from its act- 
ual value to a very low value, to the injury of the people themselves. 
When people are invited to undervalue their property on the tax lists 
without any authorized stav.dard, it excites rivalry in the nature of tax 






dodging, which injures the moral tone of a people. To such a tax law 
the people of Indian Territory are strongly opposed. 

c. Oklahoma was largely settled from Kansas, where mixed 
schools have been established by the people and this sentiment would 
be unacceptable to the people of Indian Territory, although it is not 
believed that it would largely prevail even in Oklahoma, but it shows 
the difference of sentiment between the communities. 

d. In Oklahoma the people have had to deal with blanket In- 
dians, who had made little or no advance in civilization and this con- 
ception of the Indian in Oklahoma would be most obnoxious to the 
people of Indian Territory, who recognize in the Indian citizen a friend 
and a social equal. 

e. There are numerous laws upon the Oklahoma statutes, which 
would be most obnoxious to our people. 

4 Oklahoma has all of her public buildings established too far 
away for convenient or economical use by Indian Territory. For ex- 
ample — The Agricultural and Mechanical College, the Agricultural Ex- 
periment Station, the College of Agriculture, the Colored Normal and 
University, the Territorial Library, the Northwestern Normal School, 
the Oklahoma Normal School, the University of Oklahoma, etc., etc. 
Indian Territory would send a constant stream of tax money taken out 
of the pockets of our people and out of circulation in our towns 
and this money would be put in circulation in Oklahoma towns to the 
permanent harm of our commerce. If we had our own institutions this 
money would circulate in our own midst and constitute no drain upon 
our finances. 

5. Oklahoma has the Capitol fixed and if she adopts a constitu- 
tion, would make the location permanent and compel every person in 
Indian Territory who had business there to leave Indian Territory and 
go into Oklahoma at a greater expense for its transaction. This alone 
would cost our people many thousands of dollars annually and great 
loss of time. There is no good reason why Indian Territory should not 
have its own Capitol and why the people of Indian Territory should 
not vote upon the question as to where the Capitol should be located. 
We have many worthy cities, which would like to enter the lists for this 
honor and our people should have the right by their vote to locate their 
own capitol. Our people are conservative. They would build a Capitol 
suitable to their needs and not for the sake of ostentation. In case of 
the location of the Capitol in Oklahoma no one can tell what burdens 
would be put upon our people for an ex|KMisive building outside our own 
Territory. 

6. Indian Territory people have grown accustomed to the statutes 
of Mansfield's Digest, which with some modifications would be accept- 
able and agreeable to them. If there should be a complete change of 
statute and the Oklahoma Statute prevail, all of our citizens would 
have to learn the new code, to their great annoyance and to their pe- 
cuniary loss. Our citizens would be compelled to constantly refer to 
attorneys, at an unnecessary expense, to learn the new code, which would 
occasion a further pecuniaiy loss. It would be an ill wind that would 






<^\i 






blow no good and it is fortunate that our attorneys, at least, would be 
benefited by this increase of business. 

7. There is no sympathetic relation between Oklahoma and Indian 
Territory that justifies a union of these communities. Oklahoma is 
settled from Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas; Indian Territory from Miss- 
ouri, Arkansas and Texas. Oklahoma's representative men have repeatedly 
attempted an unfair advantage in the Joint State Bill, as in the Doyle 
Bill they sought a majority of sixteen votes, and in the McGuire Bilt 
of ten votes in the proposed constitutional convention wit'h the election 
machinery in the hands of the Oklahoma officials. There is a difference 
in ideals which it is hard to explain in words, but it is assuredly true 
and it makes the people of Indian Territory feel strongly disinclined to 
this union and it makes the people of Oklahoma feel equally opposed to 
such a merger. In Indian Territory we probably have 75,000 miners in 
the coal and oil fields. Why should Oklahoma, having no miners, pass laws 
for the government of our people in these great coal and oil fields, and 
this illustration applies in numerous other particulars. 

8. Indian Territory has a treaty right to separate statehood, be- 
cause the United States gave its sacred promise to the Indians of the 
Five Civilized Tribes that the country occupied and owned by them, 
should never be included in any other State or Territory without their 
consent. The United States received and still retains valuable consid- 
erations in land and other things of value to the government in exchange 
for this grant and pledge made to the Indians of Indian Territory. These' 
treaty provisions are as follows: — 

CHEROKEES. 
"Article 5. The United States hereby covenants and agrees that 
the lands ceded to the Cherokee Nation in the foregoing article shall 
in no future time, without their consent, be included within the terri- 
torial limits or jurisdiction of any State or Territory."' (Rev. Ind. Trea- 
ties, p 69.) 

CREEKS AND SEMIXOLES. 

"Article 4. The United States do hereby solemnly agree and bind 
themselves that no State or Territory should ever pass laws for the govern- 
ment of the Creek or Seminole Tribes of Indian*:, and that no portion 
of either of the tracts of country defined m the first and second articles 
of this agreement shall ever be embraced or included within or an- 
nexed, to any Territory of State, nor shall either or any part of either 
ever be erected into a Territory without the free and full consent, or 
without the legislative authority of the Tribe owning the same." (Rev. 
Ind. Treaties, p. 111.) 

CHOCTAWS AND CHICKASAWS. 

"Article 4. The government and people of the United States are 
hereby obliged to secure to the said Choctaw Nation of red people the 
jurisdiction and government of all the persons and property that may 
be within their limits west, so that no Territory or State shall ever 
have a right to pass laws for the government of the Choctaw Nation of 
red people and their descendants, and that no part of the land granted 
them shall ever be embraced in any State or Territory." (7th U. S. Stat., 
P. n34.) 

—3— 



Recently in an official r(>po ' submitted on March 7, 1904, to Con- 
gress, by the President of the United States, upon the public service in 
the Indian Territory, prepared by Hon. Charles J. Bonaparte, the pres- 
ent Secretary of . the Navy, the following striking language occurs. (S. 
Doc. 1S9, 58th Con., 2ndSess., p. 25): — 

•'Present situation in Indian Territory." 

"To appreciate this situation one must remember the obligations 
of the government of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes. These tribes 
consented to give up their habitation in other parts of the United 
States and remove to the Territory in return for certain solemn and ex- 
plicit pledges made to them by the United States, embodied in treaties 
ratified, with all needful conptitutional formalities, and further evi- 
denced by numerous official documents of the highest authority. The 
removal of these Indians to their new homes was desired and effected 
by our goveinment to serve grave ends of public policy, and their con- 
sent to it constituted an ample consideration for the promises made them 
in return. If these promises are not binding on the United States, theu 
our government and people can be bound by no treaty. If we do not 
scrupulously respe.ct the rights flowing from these treaties no one can 
reasonably place confidence in our National honor." 

The Federal Congress will assuredly keep in good faith these 
pledges of the people and government of the United States. 

We deny that there is any disposition on the part of the people or 
the authorities of the United States to wilfully disregard the honor and 
plighted faith of the Nation, and we allege, that whenever these treat- 
ies are laid before thp Congress of the United States by the proper au- 
thorities of the people of Indian Territory, they will be respected. 

We call attention to the fact that this has not heretofore been done 
in any adequate manner. 

One of the chiefs of the Five Tribes, recently said and spoke the 
faith that was in him. "I am unable to believe that the government 
will lie to us on our death-bed." This figure of speech is offered as an 
evidence of faith which prevails among the Indian people of Indian 
Territory and in which their white neighbors may rightfully participate. 

9. The government of the United States for seventy-five years has 
pursued the fixed policy to exclude intoxicants from Indian Territory, 
not only by treaty pledge, as with the Cherokees. (Rev. Ind. Treaties, 
1). 9(1. > etc., but in the more recent agreements, they have reiterated 
these promises, for example with the Seminole Indians, December IC, 
1897, (30 Stat., 508.) as follows: 

"The United States agrees to maintain strict laws in tlie Seminole 
Country against the introduction, sale, barter, or giving away of intox- 
icants cf any kind or quality." 

As late as June 2.Sth, 1898, in "An act for the protection of the 
people of Indian Territory and for other purposes," the United States 
pledges the Indian country against the introduction of intoxicants, and 

— 4 — 



by express agreement with the Choctaw and Chickasaw (sec. 29) stip- 
ulates as follows: — 

"That no law or ordinance shall be passed by any town which in- 
terferes with the enforcement of, or is in conflict with, the laws of the 
United States in force in said Indian Territory, and all persons in such 
towns shall be subject to said laws, and the United States agrees to 
maintain strict laws in the Territory of the Choctaw and Chickasaw 
Tribes against the introduction, sale, barter and giving away of liquors 
and intoxicants of any kind or quality. (Public, 162 pp 16.) 

On May 1, 1901, the United States contracted with the Creek 
people (sec. 43) as follows: — 

"The United States agrees to maintain strict laws in said Nation 
against the introduction, sale, barter, or giving away of liquors or 
Intoxicants of any kind whatever." 

The Senate of the United States had their attention called to these 
treaty provisions and others relating to these matters by the Women's 
Christian Temperance Union of the United States and by the Anti- 
Saloon League, through Hon. Edwin C. Dinwiddle, Legislative Superin- 
tendent and the Senate of the United States by a vote that was prac- 
tically unanimous, decided in favor of prohibition for the new state, 
proposed by the Hamilton Bill, including Indian Territory and Okla- 
homa as a prohibition state. This action of the Senate persuaded Okla- 
homa that the two communities were not homogeneous. It would in- 
stantly, have destroyed, upon being put into effect about $20,000,000 of 
saloon fixtures and breweries and other investments in the brewery and 
liquor trade of Oklahoma. This illustrates how differently the com- 
munities are situated and that they ought not to be forced into an un- 
natural union. 

INDIAN TEHllITORY ENTITLED BY 1»OPULATION. 
10. Indian Territory in 190O had 392,000 population, Oklahoma 
had 398,000. At that time Indian Territory was most unfortunately 
situated for immigration. No citizen of the United States could buy a 
town lot or buy a 40 acre tract of land upon which he might erect a 
home. Oklahoma had had the advantage for many years of giving 
away homestead tracts of 160 acres to a man from anywhere on earth 
who was willing to come and locate upon an unimproved quarter sec- 
tion in its confines. 

Such an invitation had settled Oklahoma by putting a settler upon 
each quarter section. Since 1900, therefore, Oklahoma has not had 
much occasion for immigration beyond that which Is natural to a 
country fairly well settled. Oklahoma probably increased in the last 
five years 75 per cent. It has probably 700,000, but since 1900, Indian 
Territory has had a great change of statute relating to the lands and 
right to settlement in towns and country. Everywhere through Indian 
'lerrltory titles can now be obtained to town lots and agricultural and 
mineral lands. The land is no longer held by tribal government, but 



is in the hands of individuals with the right to lease and sell under 
certain limitations. A gas and oil field of enormous extent,, extending 
from the Kansas line to the Canadian River and from Fort Smith to 
Henryetta has been actually developed by the drill. The Indian Ter- 
ritory in 1890 had ISO, 000 population and had gained in 1900, 211,878 
people, an increase of 217.6 per cent. If the increase for the last five 
years were at the same rate, the population of Indian Territory would 
now exceed 800,000, but everybody knows that with the change of 
land title in Indian Territory, the rate of immigration has been enor- 
mously stimulated ?ind it would be more nearly correct to put the pop- 
ulation of Indian Territory at an increase of 200 per cent in the last 
five years, rather than 108 I'er cent. A very conservative estimate of 
the population of Indian Territory would be 1,000,000 people, and in 
two more years at the same rate of increase we should have not less 
than 1,400,000 people. These people i-epresent not only the greatest 
organized body of native American Indians in the United States, but 
also the best blood and brain of the various states of the Union from 
Maine to California. Its per cent of native born population is exceeded 
by very few states in the Union. 

The following table will show the proportion of native born whites 
of foreign parentage and foreign born whites in some of the states of the 
Union. (Percentage one is native born of foreign born parents; two, 
foreign born persons. Census 1900.) 

I. T. 

1. Per cent, of people of foreign parentage — -2.6 

2. Per cent, of people of foreign birth — 1.2 

Assuredly by population Indian Territory is entitled to statehood. 
It exceeds in population that which a large number of the states had by 
the census of 1900, to-wit: — 

Colorado 540,000 North Dakota 319,000 

Connecticut 908,000 Oregon 414,000 

Delaware 185,000 Rhode Island 428,000 

Florida 528,000 South Dakota 402,000 

Idaho 162,000 Utah 277,000 

Maine 694,000 Vermont 344,000 

Montana 243,000 Washington 518,000 

Nevada 42,000 Wyoming 93,000 

New Hampshire 412,000 West Virginia 959,000 

We have now a population three times as large as any state had at 
tne time of its admission to the Union. 

We submit a table showing the population of these Territories in 
comparison with a number of the States of the Union at the dates of 
their admission to statehood: — 

—6 — 



J. Y. Conn. 


Mass. 


R.I. 


33.2 31 


32 


32.8 


26 26.1 


29.9 


31.2 



Arizona, 1900, population 192 g-'l 

New Mexico, 1900. population 195310 

Oklahoma, 1900, population 398331 

Montana admitted November S, 1S89; population, 1890, 132,159 

North Dakota, admitted November 2, 1889; population, 1890, I82I719 
South Dakota, admitted November 2, 1888; population, 1890^ 328,803 

Utah, admitted, Jaunary 4, 1896 population, 1900 276,749 

Vermont, admitted March 4, 1791, population 1790 85^425 

Idaho, admitted July 3, 1890, population 1890, 84,385 

Wyoming, admitted July 10, 1890, population 1890 60J05 

Ohio, admitted November 29, 1802, population 1800, 45,365 

California, admitted September 9, 1850, population, 1850 92,597 

Indiana, admitted December 11, 1816, population, 1810 24,520 

Illinois, admitted December 3, 1818, population, 1820 55,211 

Washington, admitted November 11, 1889, population, 1890,.. 349,390 

Minnesota, admitted May 11, 1889 population, 1890, 172,023 

Nebraska, admitted March 1, 1867, population 1870, 122,993 

Oregon, admitted February 14, 1859, population, 1860, 52,465 

Alabama, admitted December 14, 1819, population, 1820,.... 127,901 

Florida, admitted March 3, 1845, population, 1850, 87,445 

Iowa, admitted December 1846, population, 1856 192,214 

B'elaware, (one of the original 13 states) population, 1900,. . 184,735 

INDIAN TERRITORY ENTITLED BY AREA. 

Indian Territory has 31,300 square miles. The average size of 
Oklahoma and Indian Territory is 34,660 square miles. The average 
size of the states east of the Mississippi River is 32,884 square miles. 
Indian Territory is greater in area than any of the following states: — 

Sq. Miles 

West Virginia 24,645 

Vermont, 9,125 

South Carolina, 30,170 

Rhode Island, 1,053 

New Jersey 7,525 

New Hampshire, 9,005 

Massachusetts, 8,040 

Maryland 9,860 

Maine, 29,895 

Delaware, 1,960 

Connecticut, 4,845 

Yet these states are in the Union and no question of area is ever 
raised against them. The Indian Territory is within a fraction of the 
size of Indiana, Virginia, Tennessee or Ohio. 

INDIAN TERRITORY IS ENTITLED BY ITS RESOURCES. 

It is entitled to statehood because of its enormous natural re- 
sources. It has vast fields of bituminous coal. It has the largest con- 



tiuous oil and gas fields of any State in the Union. It has millions of 
acres of magnificent forests, containing pines and hard woods of the 
best quality, it has granite, marble, lead, zinc, iron, fire clays, splendid 
brick-making shale and every kind of building stone. It produces 
splendid corn, wheat, oats, rye, flax, cotton and all the fruits and veg- 
etables known to the temperate zone. It is magnificently watered, with 
abundant rainfall and with a fine climate. 

THE INDLIX TERRITORY IS ENTITLED TO STATE GOVERNMENT 
PROM MORAL CONSIDERATIONS. 

Without an organized state government, it has no mode of provid- 
ing schools for its children, but must rely upon unorganized individual 
effort. 

It has no means of taking care of insane persons, but such unfor- 
tunates must be treated as criminals and sent outside of Indian Terri- 
tory and delivered over to strangers, far away from those who love 
them. 

It has no way of building roads and bridges or furnishing those 
convenient ways of transportation, so necessary to the welfare of its 
great agricultural classes. 

It has no way of providing for its distressed and worthy poor. 

The jails of the United States are full of unfortunate young people 
■who are charged with crime and whose crime has oeea du( to a lack 
of instruction. Indian Territory has exceeding 150,000 young people 
who have no proper school facilities. To leave them to grow up in ig- 
norance is a crime against their youth and against the future welfare 
of our State which the government of the United States can never 
p&liiate or deny. 

Indian Territory is entitled to admission, therefore — by popula- 
tion, by area, by resources, by precedent, by the natural right of people 
to self-government, and by moral considerations of the highest impor- 
tance. 

THE ARGUMENT OP THE OPPOSITION. 

Proposition 1. The first argument of the opposition is that if In- 
dian Territory were divided from Oklahoma, its boundary would be ec- 
centric, strange and peculiar, and not to be thought of in a scientific de- 
markation of state lines. Such an argument comes with peculiar grace from 
the Chairman of the Committee on Territories of the House of Representa- 
tives, who represents Michigan. This plea is obviously absurd and shows the 
poverty of argument on the part of those who deny the right of Indian Ter- 
ritory to its just participation in the affairs of the Federal government. Its 
boundaries are almost exactly north and south and east and west. It 
is bound together by innumerable railroads, with perfect convenience of 
access to all of its people with each other. The committee which made 
this argument represented Maine, far more irregular than Indian Ter- 
ritory and Maryland, cut in twain by the Cheaspeake Bay, and running 
in a string from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ohio River and Rhode Island 



divided in half by an Ocean Bay. Such arguments are unworthy of the 
Honorable gentlemen who have advanced it. 

Second. Our opponents say that Indian Territory and Oklahoma 
will make a greater state as one state than as two states. This remark- 
able argument needs analysis. Do they mean to say that the area would 
be greater as one state than as two states Certainly not. Do they 
mean it will produce more corn ; certainly not. The implication is that 
it will be greater politically, and to this we reply, that in either case 
the people would have local self-government with no enlarged powers as 
one or two states locally. They would have the same number of mem- 
bers in Congress as one state or two states, but as one state would lose 
two members to the United States Senate. It is impossible to calculate 
the importance to the west and to these communities, of two votes in the 
Federal Senate. As two states they would have four votes in the Sen- 
ate, where all great National legislation is determined. In the Senate, 
ttie great commercial treaties must be approved by two-thirds vote and 
four Western votes in the Federal Senate would off-set eight Eastern 
votes, which might possibly favor a matter injurious to the welfare of the 
West. The idea of a State being called greater because of greater area but 
with one-half the political power, is absurd. Men using this argument might 
as well demand of us, that it should be demonstrated that four is greater 
than two. In fact, in substance they allege that two is greater than four 
and invite us to the issue. 

Third. Our opponents say that it would be more economical to 
have one state than two. This we vigorously deny. It is true, that as 
one state there would be one general staff and that their salaries would 
probably be substantially less than the salaries of two sets of officers per- 
forming the same line of duties, but this item would be comparatively 
small and could not possibly exceed the sum of $25,000 per annum. 
This would be a saving as one state. This saving in one year would 
amount to 2 V2 cents each, per annum, for the inhabitants of Indian 
Territory, estimated at 1,000,000 people. This argument is of no im- 
portance. The fact is that this saving of two and a half cents each 
would be lost over and over again by the cost of the people having to 
travel twice as far to a state capitol. 

The great cost of government is in county government, which would 
be the same as one state or two states and the education of the people, 
which would be the same in one state as in two states, and the care 
of the insane and pauper class, which would be the same in one state 
or two. This analysis of the cost of government is perfectly obvious 
and requires no further demonstration. The fact is, that with the ex- 
travagant tendencies of Oklahoma and the very conservative sentiment 
of Indian Territory, it would be more economical to conduct a conser- 
vative, economical administration of a smaller state than be joined to 
Oklahoma which would rush into extravagances for capitol buildings 
and other public institutions already established, which would be 
promptly enlarged at the expense of the Indian Territory. 



Fourth. Our opponents say that we will get statehood sooner by 
favoring a joint state with Oklahoma. Such a proposition is but little 
short of impudence. 

They have for years been endeavoring to pass a joint state bill and 
have failed, because they were in a minority; and now they tell us that 
we should join a minority which is obviously wrong, as a means of quick 
action rather than to join a majority which is obviously right and on 
our side. It is like the obstinate juryman who tells the other eleven 
members, that if they want to get quick action all they have to do is to 
withdraw their obstinate and unreasonable vote. 

The fact is, the great west and the best men of the Republican 
party now in Congress stand firmly for the principles of justice to the 
western territories and have made a successful fight in the face of an 
argument of the greatest importance, used against them, to-wit:^ — -That 
the people of the Indian Territory and Oklahoma were unanimous in 
desiring to make one state. When our friends in Congress have the 
evidence of an overwhelming vote from Indian Territory, showing that 
we are unanimous in our desire for home rule and self-government 
without interference from Oklahoma, then our friends in the majority 
will have a weapon of invincible power. The great argument in Con- 
gress of the joint state advocates, has been the wish of the people. 
When we show that the people do not wish it, that they are vigorously 
opposed to it, the minority in Congress against us, will have not a foot 
to stand on, except, that it is to their sectional interests to deny us our 
rights and this argument, while of force in the cloak room, dare not 
present itself upon the floor of the Senate, because the American people 
will not stand for such a proposition. 

Fifth. Our opponents say that the east will never permit us to 
have our rights and therefore we are very foolish to demand these 
rights. 

This astonishing argument is supposed to come from the East. 
How any Western man can maintain his self-respect and agree to sucli 
a proposition, against the interest of his own community and the in- 
terest of the great West, and the interest of the Republic itself, is well 
nigh inconceivable. If those who oppose the best interest of the Indian 
Territory and the equitable apportionment of power due to the West 
were conscious of the meaning of their position they would realize the 
suicidal nature of such a course. We know that they do not .eaiize 
the fact that they are betraying the interests of their own section and 
of the great West and therefore we must acquit them of moral turpi- 
tude. 
Finally: 

To those who attempt to meet the earnest movement of our people 
by insinuation and abuse, imputing evil motives and insincerity to our 
people we are content to reply that "scurrility is the refuge of defeated 
argument." , _iJ 

— 10— 



INDIAN TEKKlTOIiV IllOM A NATIONAL STANDPOINT. 

Independent of local considerations. Indian Territory should be 
given separate statehood from a National standpoint. 

Indian Territory with Oklahoma and Texas embraces 333,000 
square miles, as big as Maine. New Hampshire, Vermont. Massachusetts, 
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York. New Jersey Pennsylvania Dela- 
ware, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and half of 
Kentucky. This northeastern country has 31 votes In the Federal Sen- 
ate. The Indian Territory and Oklahoma demand two each and with 
Texas would therefore have six. This great southwest is not only en- 
titled to six votes in the Senate on area, natural resources, and present 
population, but with its unprecedented immigration will soon be justly 
entitled to a far larger proportionate representation which it is never 
likely to claim. The northeast with thirty-one votes in the Senate can- 
not say to the great southwest that It is not entitled by area, number, 
and quality of population and by resources, to six votes in the Federal 
Senate, as its rightful apportionment of power in Federal affairs. The 
sectional argument against us will only be made in the cloak rooms. 
It dare not face thet intelligent conscience of the people of the 
United States. The people of New England would not support it. This 
great question will be determined by its moral aspect and because we 
are right. We can rest assured that w^e will triumph in this National 
contest, if we perform our duty, each one in his individual sphere, 
doing his proper part as a citizen. 

That the West appreciates its own rights in this matter is becom- 
ing more and more manifest. The legislature of California has in- 
structed its Senators on this matter and has charged them to support 
separate statehood. The legislature of Colorado has done the same 
thing and the legislature of every state west of the Mississippi River 
will do the same thing, when the people of Indian Territory have 
agreed on this matter and appeal to these states for their co-operation. 
Senator McCumber of Dakota and his associates of the far north- 
west stand firmlv for this proposition, sixteen of the great Republican 
Senators in the 57th Congress stood out for separate statehood and 
the defeat of the Hamilton Bill. 

\ number of Senators who were skillfully committed by the joint- 
state advocates to the Hamilton Bill before they saw the injury that 
would be done the West by its passage are now no longer committed 
for the 58th Congress. Some of the new Republican Senators from the 
West are known to be vigorously in favor of separate statehood for the 
Western territories, because of the rights of the West which are in- 
volved. 

Wec=t of the Mississippi River the area is 1,990,000 square miles, 
East Of the'miissfppi mver is 854.000 square miles, omitting Min- 
nesota and Louisiana in the above estimate, which lie on each side of 



—11 — 



\he river. The (enter ot: poi)ulation is moving steadily west and wiu 
soon cross the Mississippi River. East of the Mississippi River are 27 
states with 54 Senators, wesr of the river are 19 states with 38 Sena- 
tors, with a possibility of four more states and eight more Senators, 
giving the great West the possibility of 4G Senators against 54 Senators 
east. The West, by area, by resources, and by population, is en- 
titled to the eight votes fiom the four great westei'n territories. The 
the average .'^ize of the states east of the Mississippi river is 32,884 square 
average size of these western teritories is 70,187 square miles, while 
the average size of th stats ast of th Mississippi Rivr is 32,884 square 
miles. We are not impressed wiih the argument of states of our own 
size, and smaller, claiming that '"It is not our policy to create any more 
small states in the West." 

We do not desire lo question the sincerity or high moral purpose 

of our opponents in the northeast. We do not feel willing to suspect 

the purity and disinterestedness of their purpose, but if. they persist in 

this argument against small states of an average size of 76,000 square 

miles, as against their own diminutive areas, they will assuredly 

strain and possibly dislocaie our charitable faculties. 

THE RIGHT TO ADMISSION. 

Mr. Beveridge in his report on the statehood bill (Sen. Rep. 2206, 
57th Cong. 2d Ses,) lays down what he declares to be the principles 
that should determine admission. 

"First. The interests of the people of the proposed new state." 
We have made ihis obviotis. 

"Second. The interests of the remainder of the Republic." It 
is to the interest of the Republic that a million of its sons, who are of 
as great intelligence as any equal body of its children from Maine to 
California, should receive justice, and be given their rightful appor- 
tionment of power in (he affairs of the Republic. The policy most 
harmful to the interests of the Republic, and which is most liable to 
result in injury to it, is an attack upon one section by another and the 
denial of obvious and elementary justice to one section by another. Such 
wrong doing against one section by another leads not only to prejudices 
and suspicions, but to permanent antipathy which impair the harmony 
of the Nation and jeopardize its welfare. 

Mr. Beveridge in outlining the qualifications of the community nec- 
essaiT to admission, said they were: 

"First the number of people asking for admission." 

On this basis no man can justly deny our qualification on any rule 
or precedent whatever. We have over thirty times as many as Mr. Bev- 
eridge's own state had when ii was admitted. 

Second, "The condition of Those people as to education, and other 
elements of citizenship." 

We .-rand at the head of the list of slates in the percenage cf na- 

— 12— 



tive born citizens and our educational and other conditions of citizen^ 
ship fully entitle us. 

Third, "The extent of territory occupied by them/' Xo man can 
deny our right on this basis. 

Fourth, "The extent to which they have developed the resources 
of their territory." Our right on this basis is fully conceded. 

Finally, "The extent and character of all natural resources both 
developed and undeveloped." On this basis Indian Territory is, con- 
fessedly, not surpassed by any state in the Union. 

It is conceded by all parties, that Indian Territory and Oklahoma 
are ready for statehood. The only question is, shall they be one state 
or two states. Their qualifications are abundant as one state or as two 
two states and the only argument that can be found of any substantial 
force, for uniting the two territories is the argument that the people 
of Oklahoma and Indian Territory WANT it. This argument is based 
upon a false premise and we propose to demonstrate by a vote of the 
people of Indian Territory that it is utterly untrue, and that the peo- 
ple of Indian Territory no only do not wish to be united with Okla- 
homa, but they are vioienlly opposed to it; that they have treaty rights 
to the contrary upon wliich they firmly siand; and that they are earn- 
estly in favor of self government, home rule and immediate independ- 
ent statehood fcr their own people. In this great contest for the 
maintenance of our rights to manage our own affairs with our own 
means for our own people and in our own towns, and in our own 
homes, we need, we desire, and we re.spectfully solicit and demand the 
co-operation of every pa(riotic citizen cf Indian Territory who is as nec- 
essary to the success of this contest as a common soldier Is necessary 
to wage war. We believe thai we have the approval of our own people 
in standing up for our rights and the people must determine by their 
own personal individual arts wlieiher they wish self government and 
whether thev are worthv of it. 



For further Independent Statehood Literature write to 

Statehood Campaign Committee, 

, MrSKO(iFj:, J\DJA\ TKURITOIIY. 



Phoenix I'liiitiu.Jr G;., Mii>;ia,jee. lad. Ter 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



007 751 123 4 



